Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[Skepdick]

You apparently don't understand that many of the constants used in physics are empirically derived. If mixing up frameworks is incoherent, most of science is incoherent.

Apparently you don't understand that "empirically deriving a constant" is an oxymoron.

Constants is what physicists use to turn their inequalities into equations.

When your budget doesn't balance at the end of the month, you just throw in a constant that corresponds to the difference and *BOOM* everything's OK. And then, when your budget is out by exactly the same constant amount every month scientists go "hmmmm!" solid ground!

They're not; like most science gravity is not understood at the quantum level.

So you think gravity is "understood", huh? Could you tell me more about your standard/criterion for "understanding"?

Then it is scientists you should be arguing with.

Not at all! I am a scientist. I am telling you outright how much hand-waving goes into it.

The SI units are circularly defined. Apparently circular definitions are a problem for Philosophers. Scientists are OK with it.

[FlashDangerpants]

You agree with me at least as far as if one of us is right then the other is wrong.

What? Lol!

That's zero-sum thinking. That's precisely the dichotomised bullshit I am talking about.

And it's also what you are doing. So .... I'm wrong and you're right? But that makes me right and you wrong.

[tillingborn]

Apparently you don't understand that "empirically deriving a constant" is an oxymoron.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty constants which are derived empirically.

So you think gravity is "understood", huh? Could you tell me more about your standard/criterion for "understanding"?

Being able to manipulate or overcome.

The SI units are circularly defined. Apparently circular definitions are a problem for Philosophers. Scientists are OK with it.

As of 20/5/2019 the seven primary SI units are based on constants of nature. All of which are determined empirically.

[Skepdick]

And it's also what you are doing. So .... I'm wrong and you're right? But that makes me right and you wrong.

Obviously it's what I am doing. It's deliberate. I am fucking mocking you!

I am wrong about this being blue and you are right about this being red. But what makes me wrong?

Or if you will.... (because you are going to go for the Tu quoque again, you just can't help yourself)

I am right about this being blue and you are wrong about this being red. But what makes you wrong?

That's the problem with your fucking question! What sort of answer do you expect?

red.png

[tillingborn]

'E's mental.

[Skepdick]

There are plenty constants which are derived empirically.

I am sorry. What the fuck is an "empirical derivation"?

Please empirically derive 1 second for me. N.B not define. Derive.

Being able to manipulate or overcome.

So how do you "overcome" a constant?

As of 20/5/2019 the seven primary SI units are based on constants of nature. All of which are determined empirically.

Constant of nature?

Please show me a number "in nature", you silly Platonist.

[FlashDangerpants]

And it's also what you are doing. So .... I'm wrong and you're right? But that makes me right and you wrong.

Obviously it's what I am doing. It's deliberate. I am fucking mocking you!

I am wrong about this being blue and you are right about this being red. But what makes me wrong?

Or if you will.... (because you are going to go for the Tu quoque again, you just can't help yourself)

I am right about this being blue and you are wrong about this being red. But what makes you wrong?

That's the problem with your fucking question! What sort of answer do you expect?

red.png

Have you noticed how poor your track record is for guessing what reply I am going to go with?

If you are asked what colour is this object and respond 'Blue', we might wonder if you can see properly, perhaps the lighting is strange or maybe you are suffering from a headwound. But that is because we are initially assuming that you are competent in the language game of naming colours and we are investigating on the basis of some temporary loss of capacity. It is true only by convention that the name for that colour is red.

I'm sorry, I know that you hate receiving answers that aren't suitably packaged for explaining to a computer, but you are in conversation with human beings and will just have to get used to it. There isn't any real problem with the question "what colour is this dot?" unless you are trying to do something irrational with it like ask a computer to understand things for you.

[Skepdick]

Have you noticed how poor your track record is for guessing what reply I am going to go with?

And you don't think my choice of wording has anything to do with my prediction of your response?

If you are asked what colour is this object and respond 'Blue', we might wonder if you can see properly, perhaps the lighting is strange or maybe you are suffering from a headwound. But that is because we are initially assuming that you are competent in the language game of naming colours and we are investigating on the basis of some temporary loss of capacity. It is true only by convention that the name for that colour is red.

Naturally. That is precisely the conclusion anybody who is uncharitable and who assumes normative semantics would arrive at. Because the other conclusion is that I am competently speaking a different and perfectly coherent language.

So your investigation would be merely as a result of adductive reasoning leading you to an incorrect conclusion.

I'm sorry, I know that you hate receiving answers that aren't suitably packaged for explaining to a computer, but you are in conversation with human beings and will just have to get used to it. There isn't any real problem with the question "what colour is this dot?" unless you are trying to do something irrational with it like ask a computer to understand things for you.

So why can't you tell me what makes it red without appealing to normative semantics/conventions?

You are preaching to the choir re: conversing with humans. But I am not talking to human right now, am I? I am talking to a contrarian Philosopher who takes pleasure in disagreement on a platform so artificial that it resembles nothing like real-world human communication.

And so I play by your rules/example.

It's fucking blue, not red. Why is that wrong?

[Terrapin Station]

How is anyone wondering how it is that they can be correct/incorrect about colors? Colors correspond to em wavelengths. There's no mystery there.

[Skepdick]

How is anyone wondering how it is that they can be correct/incorrect about colors? Colors correspond to em wavelengths. There's no mystery there.

Sigh. You fucking idiot. Who establishes this "correspondence" and how ?

A spectrometer measures THE WAVELENGTH OF THIS LIGHT and spits out a NUMBER NOT a linguistic reference.

WHAT COLOR IS IS THIS WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT?

[FlashDangerpants]

If you are asked what colour is this object and respond 'Blue', we might wonder if you can see properly, perhaps the lighting is strange or maybe you are suffering from a headwound. But that is because we are initially assuming that you are competent in the language game of naming colours and we are investigating on the basis of some temporary loss of capacity. It is true only by convention that the name for that colour is red.

Naturally. That is precisely the conclusion anybody who is uncharitable and who assumes normative semantics would arrive at. Because the other conclusion is that I am competently speaking a different and perfectly coherent language.

So your investigation would be merely as a result of adductive reasoning leading you to an incorrect conclusion.

Sure, you could be entirely competent and just a bullshitter pretending not to know something for effect. Same diff at this point really. Either way, I am describing how this stuff does work and I think I'm doing that accurately.

I'm sorry, I know that you hate receiving answers that aren't suitably packaged for explaining to a computer, but you are in conversation with human beings and will just have to get used to it. There isn't any real problem with the question "what colour is this dot?" unless you are trying to do something irrational with it like ask a computer to understand things for you.

So why can't you tell me what makes it red without appealing to normative semantics/conventions?

You are preaching to the choir re: conversing with humans. But I am not talking to human right now, am I? I am talking to a contrarian Philosopher who takes pleasure in disagreement on a platform so artificial that it resembles nothing like real-world human communication.

And so I play by your rules/example.

It's fucking blue, not red. Why is that wrong?

I haven't been given any actual reason to not appeal to the normal way in which our language works to describe colours. If the objective is to answer a question about what colour something is, it seems acceptable to default to the words we use for that task and to use them in the normal way.

I also don't see what's so contrarian about just using words in the way that they do work for the normal purposes of articualting things and stuff. Try walking up to some stranger in a blue coat and telling him it's read and demanding that he refute you without using some right/wrong dichotomy or normative semantics, when he tells you to fuck off you can accuse him of being the uncooperative contrarian.

[Terrapin Station]

I also don't see what's so contrarian about just using words in the way that they do work for the normal purposes of articualting things and stuff. Try walking up to some stranger in a blue coat and telling him it's read and demanding that he refute you without using some right/wrong dichotomy or normative semantics, when he tells you to fuck off you can accuse him of being the uncooperative contrarian.

Objectively, it's simply a matter of the wavelengths that the coat is reflecting. What we name the subjective experience of those particular wavelengths isn't very important (it's just important that we have some name for them so that we can get people to make or produce things that are the colors we want them).

[Skepdick]

Objectively, it's simply a matter of the wavelengths that the coat is reflecting. What we name the subjective experience of those particular wavelengths isn't very important (it's just important that we have some name for them so that we can get people to make or produce things that are the colors we want them).

Great, so if if the subjective experience isn't very important then what's the problem with naming this blue?

How is this any different from you naming murder "wrong" and me naming it "right"?

Seeming as we are merely disagreeing over nomenclature, why can't we just go on with our lives?

Every time you talk to me about colors you can just remember that your red is my blue.
Every time you talk to me about murder you can just remember that your wrong is my right.

red.png

[tillingborn]

Please empirically derive 1 second for me. N.B not define. Derive.

Look at the sun at midday. Do the same tomorrow. Divide by 86400.

So how do you "overcome" a constant?

You slot the numbers into E=Gm1m2/rr and make sure you put enough fuel in your rocket. Apart from the fact that it's rocket science, it's not rocket science.

Constant of nature?

Please show me a number "in nature", you silly Platonist.

Now there's a twist. Remember you said:

You are mixing up words/terminology from different vocabularies and you think you are saying something coherent. So it takes a dick to point it out to you.

You are making a fool of yourself because, well where to start? In this case you are not mixing up words/terminology from different vocabularies. Perhaps computer scientists 'derive' everything with no reference to anything other than logic or maths, but in physics it is perfectly acceptable to derive, say the speed of light, by measuring it, using whatever arbitrary and/or circular time and distance counters you have handy. The choice of tools will not change the speed of light.

[Skepdick]

Look at the sun at midday. Do the same tomorrow. Divide by 86400.

Well that helps me fuckall!

1. How would I know when "mid day" is?
2. Once I have looked at the Sun two days in a row, what is it that I have to divide by 86400? What am I supposed to be counting?

You are making a fool of yourself because, well where to start? In this case you are not mixing up words/terminology from different vocabularies.

I am not at all. I speak both English and Mathematics. Feel free to choose one and stick to it.

Just let me know what your axioms are and justify them.

Perhaps computer scientists 'derive' everything with no reference to anything other than logic or maths, but in physics it is perfectly acceptable to derive, say the speed of light, by measuring it, using whatever arbitrary and/or circular time and distance counters you have handy.

Well that is peculiar then. If any arbitrary measurement is fine, then why isn't the speed of light 123456789?

The choice of tools will not change the speed of light.

Yeah, but the design of your instruments is supposed to measure what that speed is. So it seems a bit weird that you can't even define what 1 second is. You know, because speed is distance over time.